SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “UAS pilots”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2013

UAS in the NAS: Survey Responses by ATC, Manned Aircraft Pilots, and UAS Pilots

NASA currently is working with industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish future requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) flying in the National Airspace System (NAS). To work these issues NASA has established a multi-center UAS Integration in the NAS project. In order to establish Ground Control Station requirements for UAS, the perspective of each of the major players in NAS operations was desired. Three on-line surveys were administered that focused on Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), pilots of manned aircraft, and pilots of UAS. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with some survey respondents. The survey questions addressed UAS control, navigation, and communications from the perspective of small and large unmanned aircraft. Questions also addressed issues of UAS equipage, especially with regard to sense and avoid capabilities. From the ATC and military ATC perspective, of particular interest is how mixed-operations (manned/UAS) have worked in the past and the role of aircraft equipage. Knowledge gained from this information is expected to assist the NASA UAS in the NAS project in directing research foci thus assisting the FAA in the development of rules, regulations, and policies related to UAS in the NAS.

Comstock, James R., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2014

UAS in the NAS: Survey Responses by ATC, Manned Aircraft Pilots, and UAS Pilots

NASA currently is working with industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish future requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) flying in the National Airspace System (NAS). To work these issues NASA has established a multi-center "UAS Integration in the NAS" project. In order to establish Ground Control Station requirements for UAS, the perspective of each of the major players in NAS operations was desired. Three on-line surveys were administered that focused on Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), pilots of manned aircraft, and pilots of UAS. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with some survey respondents. The survey questions addressed UAS control, navigation, and communications from the perspective of small and large unmanned aircraft. Questions also addressed issues of UAS equipage, especially with regard to sense and avoid capabilities. From the civilian ATC and military ATC perspectives, of particular interest are how mixed operations (manned / UAS) have worked in the past and the role of aircraft equipage. Knowledge gained from this information is expected to assist the NASA UAS Integration in the NAS project in directing research foci thus assisting the FAA in the development of rules, regulations, and policies related to UAS in the NAS.

Comstock, James R., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2006

HSI Guidelines Outline for the Air Vehicle Control Station. Version 2

This document provides guidance to the FAA and manufacturers on how to develop UAS Pilot Vehicle Interfaces to safely and effectively integrate UASs into the NAS. Preliminary guidelines are provided for Aviate, Communicate, Navigate and Avoid Hazard functions. The pilot shall have information and control capability so that pilot-UA interactions are not adverse, unfavorable, nor compromise safety. Unfavorable interactions include anomalous aircraft-pilot coupling (APC) interactions (closed loop), pilot-involved oscillations (categories I, II or III), and non-oscillatory APC events (e.g., divergence). - Human Systems Integration Pilot-Technology Interface Requirements for Command, Control, and Communications (C3)

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2014

Air Traffic Controller Performance and Acceptability of Multiple UAS in a Simulated NAS Environment

Previously, we showed that air traffic controllers (ATCos) rated UAS pilot verbal response latencies as acceptable when a 1.5 s delay was added to the UAS pilot responses, but a 5 s delay was rated as mostly unacceptable. In the present study we determined whether a 1.5 s added delay in the UAS pilots' verbal communications would affect ATCos interactions with UAS and other conventional aircraft when the number and speed of the UAS were manipulated. Eight radar-certified ATCos participated in this simulation. The ATCos managed a medium altitude sector containing arrival aircraft, en route aircraft, and one to four UAS. The UAS were conducting a surveillance mission and flew at either a "slow" or "fast" speed. We measured both UAS and conventional pilots' verbal communication latencies, and obtained ATCos' acceptability ratings for these latencies. Although the UAS pilot response latencies were longer than those of conventional pilots, the ATCos rated UAS pilot verbal communication latencies to be as acceptable as those of conventional pilots. Because the overall traffic load within the sector was held constant, ATCos only performed slightly worse when multiple UAS were in their sector compared to when only one UAS was in the sector. Implications of these findings for UAS integration in the NAS are discussed.

measured response↗

NASA NTRS2012

UAS Integration Into the NAS: An Examination of Baseline Compliance in the Current Airspace System

As a result of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are expected to be integrated into the National Airspace System (NAS) by 2015. Several human factors challenges need to be addressed before UAS can safely and routinely fly in the NAS with manned aircraft. Perhaps the most significant challenge is for the UAS to be non-disruptive to the air traffic management system. Another human factors challenge is how to provide UAS pilots with intuitive traffic information in order to support situation awareness (SA) of their airspace environment as well as a see-and-avoid capability comparable to manned aircraft so that a UAS pilot could safely maneuver the aircraft to maintain separation and collision avoidance if necessary. A simulation experiment was conducted to examine baseline compliance of UAS operations in the current airspace system. Researchers also examined the effects of introducing a Cockpit Situation Display (CSD) into a UAS Ground Control Station (GCS) on UAS pilot performance, workload and situation awareness while flying in a positively controlled sector. Pilots were tasked with conducting a highway patrol police mission with a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAS in L.A. Center airspace with two mission objectives: 1) to reroute the UAS when issued new instructions from their commander, and 2) to communicate with Air Traffic Control (ATC) to negotiate flight plan changes and respond to vectoring and altitude change instructions. Objective aircraft separation data, workload ratings, SA data, and subjective ratings regarding UAS operations in the NAS were collected. Results indicate that UAS pilots were able to comply appropriately with ATC instructions. In addition, the introduction of the CSD improved pilot SA and reduced workload associated with UAS and ATC interactions.

Fern, Lisa↗

NASA NTRS2005

Recommendations for UAS Crew Ratings. Pilot Ratings and Authorization Requirements for UAS

This position paper is intended to recommend the minimum certificate and rating requirements for a pilot to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in the National Airspace System. The paper will recommend the minimum requirements based on the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) required of a UAS pilot and show how those compare to the KSAs required by regulation for manned-aircraft pilots. The paper will provide substantiation based on studies conducted using analyses, simulation and flight experience. The paper is not yet complete; only initial working material is included. The material provided describes the body of work completed thus far and the plan for remaining tasks to complete the recommendation. The HSI Pilot KSA document provides an analysis of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for UAS operation in the NAS. It is the source document used for the position paper.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to “see and avoid” other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. UAS pilots’ removal from the flight deck of the aircraft necessitates the development of a UAS-specific system for detecting nearby traffic and displaying traffic information to the pilot to support their ability to maintain an objectively defined “DAA well clear” threshold from other aircraft. This new UAS-specific function of remaining DAA well clear is called traffic avoidance. The resulting Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, however, will be subject to a collection of requirements that manufacturers will be obligated to meet in order to certify their equipment. RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), a consortium of representatives from government, industry and academia, is responsible for developing and documenting the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the DAA MOPS. Whereas the prior DAA HITLs examined a wide variety of DAA display features and concepts, the current experiment aims to validate the latest minimum display requirements for Phase 1 of the DAA MOPS. Rather than test different display concepts, this study tests two configurations of a MOPS-compatible DAA display: a version that is integrated into the primary navigation and control display of the GCS and a version that is physically separated from the primary display. This manipulation tests the draft minimum requirement that allows the DAA traffic display to be a separate, or standalone, configuration. This type of configuration is a more achievable near-term technology solution since it does not stipulate additional certification or integration requirements on UAS manufacturers. However, a standalone display configuration has the potential to result in pilot performance issues resulting from the cognitive costs of switching between the primary DAA display and the primary navigation and control display. This configuration is also particularly susceptible to errors if the displays are in different orientations (e.g., north-up versus track-up). Both the integrated and standalone display configurations were presented to 16 active UAS pilots in a medium-fidelity simulation, which included confederate air traffic controllers and pseudo pilots operating simulated manned traffic. Pilots were tasked with navigating two different mission routes while maintaining DAA well clear with scripted conflicts. Pilot response times (i.e., measured response) and ability to remain DAA well clear are reported. Primary results indicate that both display configurations resulted in favorable response times and well clear rates. While there were clear trends of pilots objectively performing better in the integrated display condition, with several measured response metrics reaching statistical significance, the differences between the two displays were typically moderate. While the primary variable of DAA display location did not have an especially large impact on pilot performance on its own, when examined alongside the type of DAA threat the pilot was facing (a caution-level versus a warning-level alert), the response time benefits associated with the integrated display were amplified. The implications of these American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 results on the Phase 1 DAA MOPS and the connection of this data to previous studies is also discussed.

detect and avoid↗

NASA NTRS2015

Identification of Human Factors in Unmanned Aviation Via Pilot Incident Reports

There is a need for incident data relevant to the operation of civilian unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Air Space (NAS). Currently, very limited incident and accident data are available from military sources, and the tightly-restricted civilian UAS industry has produced very few incident reports that could shed light on design issues relevant to human factors. An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting voluntary critical incident reports from UAS pilots, and using the information to identify areas where human factors guidelines will be of assistance. Experienced UAS pilots are participating in small focus groups in which they are prompted to describe critical incidents that either reveal a system flaw, or highlight a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. The de-identified incidents are being analyzed to identify contributing factors, with a focus on design issues that either hindered or assisted the pilot in dealing with the incident. Preliminary findings will be described.

human factors↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial testing of the Uncrewed Aerial System Pilot Kit (UASP-kit) in Operational Settings

Pilots for small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) are at a disadvantage for building situation awareness of the remote airspace in which they are flying, simply because they are distant from their vehicles. A tool to provide increased air traffic situation awareness for an sUAS pilot is being developed. The UAS pilot kit, “UASP-kit,” is small and self-contained, with its chief capability being to collect and display Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast reports of local aircraft. UASP-kits were taken into the field, introduced to users during a training course, and then left with them for the summer fire season. sUAS pilots used the prototypes when it was appropriate throughout the summer. The UASP-kits were operational for a total of 79 flight-days. Users reported that the UASP-kits supported their situation awareness but also identified several usability issues. The findings contribute to validation of the UASP-kit, and support continuing the work to improve the tool and develop additional functionality.

STEReO↗

NASA NTRS2017

Maintain and Regain Well Clear: Maneuver Guidance Designs for Pilots Performing the Detect-and-Avoid Task

In order to support the future expansion and integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), ongoing research efforts have sought to produce findings that inform the minimum display information elements required for acceptable UAS pilot response times and traffic avoidance. Previous simulations have revealed performance benefits associated with DAA displays containing predictive information and suggestive maneuver guidance tools in the form of banding. The present study investigated the impact of various maneuver guidance display configurations on detect-and-avoid (DAA) task performance in a simulated airspace environment. UAS pilots ability to maintain DAA well clear was compared between displays with either the presence or absence of green DAA bands, which indicated conflict-free flight regions. Additional display comparisons assessed pilots ability to regain DAA well clear with two different guidance presentations designed to aid in DAA well clear recovery during critical encounters. Performance implications and display considerations for future UAS DAA systems are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)↗

NASA NTRS2017

Maintain and Regain Well Clear: Maneuver Guidance Designs for Pilots Performing the Detect-and-Avoid Task

user interface design↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA's UAS Integration into the NAS: A Report on the Human Systems Integration Phase 1 Simulation Activities

In 2011 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began a five-year Project to address the technical barriers related to routine access of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). Planned in two phases, the goal of the first phase was to lay the foundations for the Project by identifying those barriers and key issues to be addressed to achieve integration. Phase 1 activities were completed two years into the five-year Project. The purpose of this paper is to review activities within the Human Systems Integration (HSI) subproject in Phase 1 toward its two objectives: 1) develop GCS guidelines for routine UAS access to the NAS, and 2) develop a prototype display suite within an existing Ground Control Station (GCS). The first objective directly addresses a critical barrier for UAS integration into the NAS - a lack of GCS design standards or requirements. First, the paper describes the initial development of a prototype GCS display suite and supporting simulation software capabilities. Then, three simulation experiments utilizing this simulation architecture are summarized. The first experiment sought to determine a baseline performance of UAS pilots operating in civil airspace under current instrument flight rules for manned aircraft. The second experiment examined the effect of currently employed UAS contingency procedures on Air Traffic Control (ATC) participants. The third experiment compared three GCS command and control interfaces on UAS pilot response times in compliance with ATC clearances. The authors discuss how the results of these and future simulation and flight-testing activities contribute to the development of GCS guidelines to support the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Finally, the planned activities for Phase 2, including an integrated human-in-the-loop simulation and two flight tests are briefly described.

National Airspace System↗

NASA NTRS2021

UAS Integration in the NAS Flight Test 6: Full Mission Results

Recent standards development efforts for the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) such as those in RTCA Inc. Special Committee 228 (SC-228) have focused on relatively large UAS transitioning to and from Class A airspace. In an effort to expand the range of vehicle classes that can access the NAS, the NASA UAS Integration in the NAS project has investigated Low Size, Weight, and Power (Low SWaP) technologies that would allow smaller UAS to detect-and-avoid (DAA) traffic. Through batch and human in the loop (HITL) simulation studies, the UAS Integration in the NAS DAA subproject have identified candidate performance standards that would contribute to enabling extended Low SWaP, UAS operations under 10,000 feet. These candidate performance standards include minimum field of regard (FOR) values for Low SWaP air surveillance sensors as well as a DAA well-clear (DWC) definition which can be applied to non-cooperative traffic to reduce the required maneuver initiation range. To test the assumptions of the project’s simulation studies and validate the candidate performance standards, a live flight research event was executed at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center. The UAS Integration in the NAS Project Flight Test 6 Full Mission sought to characterize UAS pilot responses to traffic conflicts using a representative Low SWAP DAA system in an operational NAS environment. To achieve this, live, virtual and constructive distributed environment (LVC-DE) elements were combined to simulate a sector of Oakland center airspace and induce encounters with a live, manned aircraft. A Navmar Applied Sciences Tigershark XP was used as the UAS ownship and was integrated into the test architecture to enable it to be controlled from a Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS) research ground control station. Qualified UAS pilots were recruited to act as subject pilots under test (SPUT) to control the Tigershark XP in a simulated mission while coordinating with a participating air traffic controller in simulated airspace. The intruder speed, intruder equipage and encounter geometry were varied between six scripted encounters per SPUT. Various metrics were collected including pilot reaction time from the onset of DAA alert, ATC coordination rate, probability and severity of losses of DAA well clear, and subjective ratings of system acceptability. The implications of these results on the development of standards for Low SWAP DAA systems will be discussed.

UAV↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evaluating Alerting and Guidance Performance of a UAS Detect-And-Avoid System

A key challenge to the routine, safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) is the development of detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems to aid the UAS pilot in remaining "well clear" of nearby aircraft. The goal of this study is to investigate the effect of alerting criteria and pilot response delay on the safety and performance of UAS DAA systems in the context of routine civil UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). A NAS-wide fast-time simulation study was conducted to assess UAS DAA system performance with a large number of encounters and a broad set of DAA alerting and guidance system parameters. Three attributes of the DAA system were controlled as independent variables in the study to conduct trade-off analyses: UAS trajectory prediction method (dead-reckoning vs. intent-based), alerting time threshold (related to predicted time to LoWC), and alerting distance threshold (related to predicted Horizontal Miss Distance, or HMD). A set of metrics, such as the percentage of true positive, false positive, and missed alerts, based on signal detection theory and analysis methods utilizing the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were proposed to evaluate the safety and performance of DAA alerting and guidance systems and aid development of DAA system performance standards. The effect of pilot response delay on the performance of DAA systems was evaluated using a DAA alerting and guidance model and a pilot model developed to support this study. A total of 18 fast-time simulations were conducted with nine different DAA alerting threshold settings and two different trajectory prediction methods, using recorded radar traffic from current Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations, and supplemented with DAA-equipped UAS traffic based on mission profiles modeling future UAS operations. Results indicate DAA alerting distance threshold has a greater effect on DAA system performance than DAA alerting time threshold or ownship trajectory prediction method. Further analysis on the alert lead time (time in advance of predicted loss of well clear at which a DAA alert is first issued) indicated a strong positive correlation between alert lead time and DAA system performance (i.e. the ability of the UAS pilot to maneuver the unmanned aircraft to remain well clear). While bigger distance thresholds had beneficial effects on alert lead time and missed alert rate, it also generated a higher rate of false alerts. In the design and development of DAA alerting and guidance systems, therefore, the positive and negative effects of false alerts and missed alerts should be carefully considered to achieve acceptable alerting system performance by balancing false and missed alerts. The results and methodology presented in this study are expected to help stakeholders, policymakers and standards committees define the appropriate setting of DAA system parameter thresholds for UAS that ensure safety while minimizing operational impacts to the NAS and equipage requirements for its users before DAA operational performance standards can be finalized.

UAS Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) System↗

NASA NTRS2005

Step 1: Human System Integration (HSI) FY05 Pilot-Technology Interface Requirements for Command, Control, and Communications (C3)

The document provides the Human System Integration(HSI) high-level functional C3 HSI requirements for the interface to the pilot. Description includes (1) the information required by the pilot to have knowledge C3 system status, and (2) the control capability needed by the pilot to obtain C3 information. Fundamentally, these requirements provide the candidate C3 technology concepts with the necessary human-related elements to make them compatible with human capabilities and limitations. The results of the analysis describe how C3 operations and functions should interface with the pilot to provide the necessary C3 functionality to the UA-pilot system. Requirements and guidelines for C3 are partitioned into three categories: (1) Pilot-Air Traffic Control (ATC) Voice Communications (2) Pilot-ATC Data Communications, and (3) command and control of the unmanned aircraft (UA). Each requirement is stated and is supported with a rationale and associated reference(s).

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2007

Step 1:Human System Integration (HSI) FY05 Pilot-Technology Interface Requirements for Collision Avoidance

This document provides definition of technology human interface requirements for Collision Avoidance (CA). This was performed through a review of CA-related, HSI requirements documents, standards, and recommended practices. Technology concepts in use by the Access 5 CA work package were considered... Beginning with the HSI high-level functional requirement for CA, and CA technology elements, HSI requirements for the interface to the pilot were identified. Results of the analysis describe (1) the information required by the pilot to have knowledge CA system status, and (2) the control capability needed by the pilot to obtain CA information and affect an avoidance maneuver. Fundamentally, these requirements provide the candidate CA technology concepts with the necessary human-related elements to make them compatible with human capabilities and limitations. The results of the analysis describe how CA operations and functions should interface with the pilot to provide the necessary CA functionality to the UA-pilot system .Requirements and guidelines for CA are partitioned into four categories: (1) General, (2) Alerting, (3) Guidance, and (4) Cockpit Display of Traffic Information. Each requirement is stated and is supported with a rationale and associated reference(s).

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2015

Java Architecture for Detect and Avoid Extensibility and Modeling

Unmanned aircraft will equip with a detect-and-avoid (DAA) system that enables them to comply with the requirement to "see and avoid" other aircraft, an important layer in the overall set of procedural, strategic and tactical separation methods designed to prevent mid-air collisions. This paper describes a capability called Java Architecture for Detect and Avoid Extensibility and Modeling (JADEM), developed to prototype and help evaluate various DAA technological requirements by providing a flexible and extensible software platform that models all major detect-and-avoid functions. Figure 1 illustrates JADEM's architecture. The surveillance module can be actual equipment on the unmanned aircraft or simulators that model the process by which sensors on-board detect other aircraft and provide track data to the traffic display. The track evaluation function evaluates each detected aircraft and decides whether to provide an alert to the pilot and its severity. Guidance is a combination of intruder track information, alerting, and avoidance/advisory algorithms behind the tools shown on the traffic display to aid the pilot in determining a maneuver to avoid a loss of well clear. All these functions are designed with a common interface and configurable implementation, which is critical in exploring DAA requirements. To date, JADEM has been utilized in three computer simulations of the National Airspace System, three pilot-in-the-loop experiments using a total of 37 professional UAS pilots, and two flight tests using NASA's Predator-B unmanned aircraft, named Ikhana. The data collected has directly informed the quantitative separation standard for "well clear", safety case, requirements development, and the operational environment for the DAA minimum operational performance standards. This work was performed by the Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid Interoperability team under NASA's UAS Integration in the NAS project.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2005

Step 1: Human System Integration Pilot-Technology Interface Requirements for Weather Management

This document involves definition of technology interface requirements for Hazardous Weather Avoidance. Technology concepts in use by the Access 5 Weather Management Work Package were considered. Beginning with the Human System Integration (HIS) high-level functional requirement for Hazardous Weather Avoidance, and Hazardous Weather Avoidance technology elements, HSI requirements for the interface to the pilot were identified. Results of the analysis describe (1) the information required by the pilot to have knowledge of hazardous weather, and (2) the control capability needed by the pilot to obtain hazardous weather information. Fundamentally, these requirements provide the candidate Hazardous Weather Avoidance technology concepts with the necessary human-related elements to make them compatible with human capabilities and limitations. The results of the analysis describe how Hazardous Weather Avoidance operations and functions should interface with the pilot to provide the necessary Weather Management functionality to the UA-pilot system. Requirements and guidelines for Hazardous Weather Avoidance are partitioned into four categories: (1) Planning En Route (2) Encountering Hazardous Weather En Route, (3) Planning to Destination, and (4) Diversion Planning Alternate Airport. Each requirement is stated and is supported with a rationale and associated reference(s).

Source record↗